Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: chat

Blog post by KJK on Motherhood

55 replies

throwawaynametoday · 23/06/2025 11:17

Just read this. I find myself instinctively agreeing with it, especially the part in bold below (my emphasis). But equally I see tension between this and women's equality in the workplace and within relationships. Interested in hearing other women's thoughts.

The Real Childcare Crisis: When Mothers Can't Afford to Be Mothers

I have always believed — as most mothers do — that the first three years of a child’s life are absolutely crucial. And now or rather, and again, neuroscience and child psychology confirm what our instincts already told us: young children need consistent, loving care from their mothers in those early years to develop emotionally and neurologically. This isn’t sentiment — it’s science.

So why do we have a system that forces mothers to walk away from their babies before they’re ready?

Everywhere you turn, politicians and pundits talk about the “childcare crisis.” But what they really mean is a labour crisis — not enough adults in the workforce. Their solution? Push more mothers into full-time employment and expand state-funded daycare. It doesn’t matter whether the mother wants to return to work, or whether the child is ready. It doesn’t matter whether the job is fulfilling or soul-destroying. What matters, to them, is productivity.

At the Party of Women, we say: enough. Mothers are not spare parts in the economy. Babies are not burdens to be outsourced. Families are not the problem — they are the foundation of a stable society.

“The Party of Women believes that women should have a genuine choice to raise their young children at home without being economically penalised or socially pressured.”

This crisis didn’t emerge overnight. It began when we were all expected to start pretending that men and women are interchangeable in parenthood — that fathers could be just as natural, nurturing, and attuned to infants as mothers. But this ideological shift did not serve women or children well. It demanded that women deny their instincts, suppress their unique role, and behave as if babies need only a “caregiver,” not a mother. It’s a lie — and it has led to policies that devalue the maternal bond, treat childcare as a commodity, and shame women for wanting to stay at home with their babies.

One of the most damaging consequences of this thinking was the removal of joint taxation for married couples. Once, the tax system recognised that raising children was a shared family responsibility — now it punishes couples where one parent stays home. It assumes everyone should be in paid work, and that the care of children is secondary or easily replaceable. It isn’t.

Many women today are returning to work when their babies are just months old — not because they want to, but because they cannot afford not to. And for what? Often, it’s not a dream job or a fulfilling career. It’s a stressful, low-paid role that barely covers the cost of childcare. Mothers are exhausted. Children are missing out. Families are strained. No one is winning in this model.

We must stop pretending this is progress.

Psychotherapist Erica Komisar, in her book Being There, lays out the evidence: a mother’s presence in the first three years of life is essential for a child’s mental health. When that bond is disrupted too soon, children are more likely to experience anxiety, behavioural issues, and difficulties forming relationships later in life. That’s not guilt-tripping — that’s facing the truth.

Our policy response must reflect that truth. That’s why the Party of Women is committed to:

  • Resolving the economic pressures that force mothers into premature separation from their children;
  • Exploring tax reforms and family allowances that support parents’ right to choose how they care for their children;
  • Recognising motherhood as a vital contribution to the social and economic wellbeing of the country;
  • And ensuring no woman has to choose between bonding with her baby and paying the bills.
Let me say clearly: I believe motherhood is a superpower. It is one of the most meaningful and remarkable things most women will ever do in their entire lifetime. It should be celebrated, supported, and protected — not undermined by policy and dismissed by culture. This is not about left or right. It’s about truth. It’s about recognising that the wellbeing of children should not be sacrificed on the altar of GDP. A society that truly values families would not penalise a mother for staying home in the years her child needs her most. A society that truly puts children first would not view maternal care as a private indulgence, but as a public good. It’s time to stop treating motherhood as a problem to fix — and start treating it as the foundation to build on.
OP posts:
PinkFrogss · 23/06/2025 21:27

Sounds like a great way of increasing the gender pay and pensions gaps.

Women are already left vulnerable in so many ways, and that must be addressed first.

CaptainSevenofNine · 23/06/2025 21:36

This feels like a response to a mothering/childcare/children situation that’s only really existed for a short period of time.

The majority of women, of mothers, have always worked.

It takes a village not just a mother…

OhBuggerandArse · 23/06/2025 21:44

But the point of the village is to support the mother.

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · 23/06/2025 21:49

There is no way round the fact that only women can become pregnant and give birth. This is essential for the survival of our species and most of us choose to do it, but we've structured society in such a way that women taking time off for ante-natal checks and maternity leave is treated as an inconvenience for employers and many employers even now do their best to avoid taking on women of childbearing age. It's not worked giving women career opportunities but expecting them to be just like men. No idea how we sort it out, but the present set up is far from perfect.

earlyr1ser · 24/06/2025 19:29

Such a manipulative line, and one that the nu-right spins continuously. Notice that KJK is completely silent as to the needs of children who are not under three. Eight, nine, ten year olds - let alone teenagers - don't want to spend hours at home gazing at mummy. They want to be out, having adventures with their friends; all successful children's writers understand this, btw. And by the time her children are no longer infants, many a mother wants to be out in the wider world as well.

Mothers are not insects. We don't form a giant chrysalis around our babies and then fragment away. We're human beings and we require human contact, which for many people means having colleagues.

Our children are humans too. And if people like KJK really did care about children, they'd think about their needs after they stop being cute little bundles. Remember: a child is for life, not just for bashing feminists with.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread